question about #0
Dear all, I’m reading Miller Puckette’s Theory and Techniques of Electronic Music. To help myself understand the examples in the book better, I try to implement some examples in Max/MSP instead of PD.
To avoid name conflicts, these examples utilize a special feature in PD: the symbol $0 will be replaced by a unique id for each patch. After some forum search, I found that #0 seems to be the trick.
However, I can’t any mention in the max5 reference document about this feature. Is this still working in Max5? How can I test it (because I think simply print a "#0" message won’t display the unique id)?
Any input will be appreciated.
If you open the ExamplesOverview patch from the Extras menu and click on the Max tab there is an example in the Max Tricks pane which should make things a bit clearer.
#0 and $0 work similarly in Max and Pd. The main difference, however, is that in Max #0 only works in abstractions. It does not give a unique id to the parent patch. In Pd, it does.
|.mmb wrote on Mon, 16 November 2009 04:59|
|#0 and $0 work similarly in Max and Pd. The main difference, however, is that in Max #0 only works in abstractions. It does not give a unique id to the parent patch. In Pd, it does.|
when you need #0 in the root patch, simply make an abstraction
which contains [t #0].
Yeah. I’ve actually gotten in the habit of making the parent patch a bpatcher and putting everything in there. But it does making editing a bit irritating.
I should also point out to larme that #0 works in message boxes, but in Pd $0 does not. You have to do something like this:
and in max it also works inside symbols.
things like [buffer~ #0_sample1 1000.] are commonly used.
Thanks for all your kind replies. It solves my confusion.
|larme wrote on Sun, 15 November 2009 05:20|
|However, I can’t any mention in the max5 reference document about this feature. Is this still working in Max5?|
Larme, you’re right. There is nothing in the reference. I already opened a topic about this more than one year ago:
As you may see, nobody reacted.
It is unfortunately not the only things missing in Max5′s documentation, but as you don’t know what is missing, you won’t notice.
It is also missing in Max5.1ß, I just wonder wether #0 is usefull in Max4Live…
It may be a good idea to download Max4 and read its pdf documentation files.
i had the same problem with a huge patch i am working on. i did not want loads of sample players in the library, just one that can be easily edited.
then when i looked through Arne Englefeldt’s ‘almost live’ patch, i have had it for ages. i remember he only has one looper, but it is split into four loopers on the patch itself. then i dug a little deeper and found the [#0_*nameofsample*] argument for the [buffer~] and [groove~], plus [info~].
now i am starting to go through all of my previous patches and doing this to them. too many
a lot easier now.
it should be implemented in with the next update for max in the documentation i think. more so, for the people who dont know about it and cant figure it out. just to show the certain arguments you can use that are not just the regular ones that get things working, but ones to make patching a lot less cumbersome.
anyhow, at least there is a forum post on it now…
|lewis g. edwards wrote on Mon, 16 November 2009 11:48|
|anyhow, at least there is a forum post on it now…|
Did you try to search the forum with #0?
It returns unsurprisingly "No Results".
If you use google and $0 as keyword, you can still get some results . But I agree that including it in reference is far better than just providing an example under the extra menu.